Is 1200 calories safe??

I had my BMR/RMR tested because it seemed I had to target a net of 1000 calories a day or less to see even the slightest loss. Sure, I could be bad/lazy at counting the calories, but wanted to know where I needed to be. I hear so many stories where similar women eat near 2000cal/day and no idea how they do that.

MY target to lose according to the BMR test (measures CO2/O2 breathing, thus metabolism) was 1253 calories. So, it is a thing. Some of us are more efficient, or have less muscle. Although the data I got put me a hair above average for height weight age and metabolism. So, I feel like that's where most of "us" are. So just make the most of your choices, maybe stagger the calories through out the week. 1200 MWF, 1700 SS, TR 1000 or something that fits with your workout schedule. Don't expect every day to require the same amount of calories, you are not a machine. Adjust and add a healthy meal where needed.

5'5" 129lbs. 50yo. F. Active at time of testing (runner).

DancingMoosie wrote: »

So did it test your BMR to be 1253? Or did it do some calculations of your BMR, activity, and weightloss goal to come up with that number?

That was a measured result. I tried to find the data sheet but couldn't, perhaps it wasn't added to my online account with DexaFit. I was 120.5lbs, 48.5yo, 31%BF via DexaScan.

ETA it actually suggested if I wanted to lose weight to net just under 1000 a day. Which isn't feasible if you are running or any other cardio. I just tried to fuel for runs and add recovery days with bit more calories. I should have added HIIT and resistance to lose without fighting each and every calorie with fasted running.

DancingMoosie wrote: »

But my question is, is 1253 your BMR? If so, you should eat above your BMR because it is what your body would but at rest.

yes, absolutely.

Might want to check out excellent posts by Emily Patterson, "Under 1200 for weight-loss." It doesn't make sense but when I cut my calories down I don't lose but gain a lb or so - if I eat the amount deemed per the charts (mfp calculator) I lose - maybe not as fast as I'd like, but it works. Friends yrs ago on Weight Watchers said when they didn't eat all their food they'd actually gain. I didn't believe! I think it applies more when you're older and have abused your body by one too many crash/caloric restricted diets. I know so many older gals who starve to remain thin (around 700-800 cals) and exercise like crazy - always having health issues - gall bladder, stomach, etc.

netitheyeti wrote: »

Pittgirl3 wrote: »

MFP recommened 1236. It’s been kinda hard to stick to especially since I try to be under my goal. So I usually end up around 1100.
I’m starving. But I’m learning to eat until I’m satisfied rather than being full. It’s a really weird feeling.

can I just ask why you try and stay 100+kcal under? 1200ish is low as it is and if you're weighing and measuring your portions you should be ok eating the numbers mfp gives you

I don’t try to end up there, it just sort of happens. I do weigh out my food and meal prep accordingly. So I’ll set out to eat certain prepared meals during the day but, due to timing issues, I usually end up being short on calories. Instead of stuffing my face like I really, really, REALLY want to do, I just try to go to bed. I have poor impulse control so it’s better for me to go to bed feeling slightly hungry than to try and grab a snack to max my calories and end up going over.

How big are you now (height/weight), and how fast did you tell MFP you want to lose?

MFP doesn't recommend a calorie level out of the blue. It recommends a calorie level based on how fast we say we want to lose. It'll let a person choose punitively fast, unsustainable loss rates. (I'm not saying you did that: I don't know, which is why I asked the questions in the first paragraph.)

The only brakes MFP applies is that it won't give women a goal below 1200. Clearly, if you got 1236, you didn't hit that limit.

Most people will find a loss rate less than 1% of current body weigh per week more sustainable, and a slower rate than that can be more risk-averse for someone with relatively little to lose - less than 40-50 pounds, say. [/quote]

I’m 5’6, probably between 230-240lbs (I haven’t checked it in months because I’m too embarrassed). I’m also home during quarantine so that’s probably why my suggested calories are so low. I had to change my activity level to sedentary.

I’m also trying to get back down to the 100s by the end of the year, so I’m trying to get the most out of my weight loss (about 2lbs a week) Once I get back into the gym, I know I can make more happen. I gained a lot of weight during a pretty bad depressive episode, so I’m trying to get things back on track. I’m young and have always been an athlete, so I don’t plan on this being long term, just until I get back to some semblance of normalcy.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Pittgirl3 wrote: »

How big are you now (height/weight), and how fast did you tell MFP you want to lose?

MFP doesn't recommend a calorie level out of the blue. It recommends a calorie level based on how fast we say we want to lose. It'll let a person choose punitively fast, unsustainable loss rates. (I'm not saying you did that: I don't know, which is why I asked the questions in the first paragraph.)

The only brakes MFP applies is that it won't give women a goal below 1200. Clearly, if you got 1236, you didn't hit that limit.

Most people will find a loss rate less than 1% of current body weigh per week more sustainable, and a slower rate than that can be more risk-averse for someone with relatively little to lose - less than 40-50 pounds, say.

I’m 5’6, probably between 230-240lbs (I haven’t checked it in months because I’m too embarrassed). I’m also home during quarantine so that’s probably why my suggested calories are so low. I had to change my activity level to sedentary.

I’m also trying to get back down to the 100s by the end of the year, so I’m trying to get the most out of my weight loss (about 2lbs a week) Once I get back into the gym, I know I can make more happen. I gained a lot of weight during a pretty bad depressive episode, so I’m trying to get things back on track. I’m young and have always been an athlete, so I don’t plan on this being long term, just until I get back to some semblance of normalcy.

You're probably OK at 2 pounds a week, then, though if the "starving" thing wasn't hyperbole, I'd consider a slower course. It can take a couple of weeks to adapt to new eating habits, but if things stay white-knuckle difficult, then sometimes going slower can be more sustainable, and result in reaching goal weight faster, if the alternative is on/off plan cycles. I'm not saying you're there, or even going there, but something to keep in mind.

Wishing you much success!

P.S. If the actual rate of loss turns out to be greater than expected, or you start feeling weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, I'd press these questions harder. I'm admittedly a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner for some reason, but at 5'5", 130, age 64, sedentary outside of exercise, 1200 would still be way too low for me - I'd lose close to two pounds a week, even eating back exercise on top of the 1200. As a long-term athlete, it's possible you could turn out to have a higher TDEE than demographics might predict, so it's something to look out for. As long as actual loss rate stays moderate, you're probably OK, though.

Thanks. That was super helpful! Definitely some things to consider.

I don't lose weight too quickly on 1300 cals and it's probably because my logging isn't perfect, so I don't overthink the number. If I find I'm tired or hungry, I eat more.

searchgal1 wrote: »

MFP gives me 1200 calories for any rate of weight loss. It increases to 1340 only if I say I want to maintain my current weight. I'm only 5'2" and am active - exercising almost daily for at least 1 hour; sometimes more. I eat back my exercise calories, but most days not all of them. My weight loss has stalled for the last couple months. I've lost 20-22 pounds, depending on the day. I only have 4-5 more pounds to go, but I just don't know what to do to get there. I don't think I can go lower than 1200. As it is, that's hard to stick to. I'm afraid to increase calories because I gain weight just thinking about food. Is that irrational?? Can managing macros make a difference? I just manage the calories in/calories out, without paying much attention to anything else.

Five lbs is within the margin of error and daily weight fluctuations. It's best at this point to ignore the scale as best you can, as you might only see the scale go down permanently by a 1 lb every month or two.

How careful is your logging? If you aren't double checking that the database entries you're choosing match the food labels, if you're not using a food scale, and if you're not logging every day it's quite possible you're eating more than you think.

As far as your mfp goal, I would double check your setup - make sure your height, weight, and activity level are correct. Unless you are already drastically underweight, at 5'2 and active your maintenance is well over 1340.

I have logged for the past 190 days! I am fanatical about it. I have plugged my own recipes in to get accurate calorie counts per serving. I am looking for a food scale - I use the old WW measures for serving sizes if I am eating something that is not labeled or doesn't fit into a measuring cup. One thing might be off - when I put info into the goal set up tool in MFP, I have said that I'm sedentary, since all of the descriptions seem to relate to work, e.g. sitting at a desk; always on your feet; etc. I'm retired, so although active, I'm not on my feet all day, not doing heavy lifting. I will play with that and see how the numbers change. I like the thought that I might get more than 1340 calories in maintenance! Combined with exercise points, that would give me a lot more freedom.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! Appreciate the help.